Here I would beg leave to call the attention of philosophers to this observation of a naturalist who explains all petrification, and the consolidation of strata by aqueous infiltration. If he has here found reason to conclude that, in those primordial parts of the earth, there are a great number which, from their present configuration, must have been in a soft state and then hardened, and this by a quite different cause from that which he supposes had produced the consolidation and hardness of the secondary parts; this is entering precisely into my views of the subject, in ascribing all the consolidation of the earth, whether primary or secondary, to one general cause, and in tracing this cause, from its effects, to be no other than the fusion of those bodies. It must be evident, that if this philosopher has seen good reason for concluding such a softening cause, which had operated upon the primary parts, to be quite different from that which he ascribes to the consolidation of the secondary, which is the effect of water, it must then, I say, be evident that the softening cause of the primary parts, if not heat, by which every degree of fusion may be produced, must be an occult cause, one which cannot be admitted into natural philosophy. By thus choosing to consider mountains as of two distinct kinds, one aquiform which is understood, and the other primordial which is not to be known, we supersede the necessity of reconciling a theory with many appearances in nature which otherwise might be extremely inconvenient to our explanation, if not inconsistent with our system. Our author no doubt has thus relieved himself from a considerable difficulty in the philosophy of this earth, by saying here is a great part which is not to be explained. But I would beg leave to observe, that this form of discussion, with regard to a physical subject, is but a mere confession of our ignorance, and has no tendency to clear up another part of the subject of which one treats, however it may impress us with a favourable opinion of the theorist, in allowing him all the candour of the acknowledgement. The general result of the reasoning which we now have quoted, and what follows in his examination, seems to terminate in this; that there are various different compositions of mountains which this author cannot allow to be the production of the sea; but it is not upon account of the matter of which they are formed, or of the particular mixture and composition of those species of matter, of which the variety is almost indefinite. According to this philosopher, the distinction that we are to make of those primordial and secondary competitions, consists in this, that the first are in such a shape and structure as cannot be conceived to be formed by subsidence in water.